Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:109
Discovery:first mentioned, 1698 Lhuyd, E.
History:Westwood/1860, 223, 226: `During the last meeting of this Association, held at Cardigan, in August 1859, I took the opportunity of visiting and inspecting three very interesting early inscribed stones in the parish of Clydai, a few miles south of Newcastle Emlyn, to which my attention had been kindly directed by Mr. Vincent and by Dr. Jones, whose charming residence in the valley of the Cych afforded me a pleasant resting-place during my day's ramble in search of these hitherto undescribed relics of antiquity...The third of these Clydai stones is now built into the foot of the steps leading to the granary at Tygoed farm, about a mile north of the church, having been taken from Clydai churchyard'.

Rhys/1873, 5: `August 14...About a mile from the church, at a farm-house called Dygoed (more correctly, perhaps, Dugeod), there is a cross-inscribed stone, which also seems bilingual...It would be satisfactory to learn that the old stone is removed to some place, where it would be out of the reach of accidents'.

Westwood/1879, 124: `This stone is preserved at the farm of Dugoed[1], one mile to the north of Clydai church, from the churchyard of which it was taken, and to which it ought to be restored. It is now built into the footsteps leading to the granary in the farmyard, where I found it during the Cardigan Meeting of the Archaeol. Cambrian Association, and published the first account of the stone in the Arch. Camb., 1860, p. 227.

[1] This is written Tygoed in my article in Arch. Camb., 1860, p. 227'.

Allen/1896, 291: `Removed from Clydey and for a long time built into the steps leading to the granary of Dugeod Farm, one mile and a half north of Clydey; now placed inside Clydey Church'.

Macalister/1922a, 29: `At CLYDAI I found the stone long preserved at Dugeod farm now housed safely in the Church'.

RCAHMW/1925, 75: `The third stone now in Clydai church is said to have once stood in `an old chappel in the churchyard', but at a date not far beyond living memory it was removed to the farm of Dugeod, about two miles north of the church, where it lay until restored to the church by the late Mr. Henry Owen, D.C.L., a member of this Commission...The stone came into notice through enquiries made by Edward Lhuyd, keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, of the clergy and others of the Principality in the year 1698. Lhuyd may himself have visited Clydai; but at any rate one of his assistants who reached the place took a sketch of the inscription, and this sketch, or a copy of it, passed at Lhuyd's death in 1709 to Mr. John Anstis, in whose collection, now at the British Museum, it has been preserved. The sketch is extremely rude, and is evidently the work of one who had been told to be a faithful copyist of the letters and markings that he saw upon the stone, but who was not equal to a drawing of the cross...At the moment of going to press another sketch of the third Clydai stone has been discovered amongst the Anstis collection of Lhuyd drawings. This probably represents a second effort, and shows the cross upon the stone...A note to this second drawing names the `old chapel in the churchyard' where the stone was then in situ'.

Macalister/1945, 411: `This stone was at some time conveyed from the churchyard to a farm called Dugoed, about a couple of miles away, where it was seen by the earlier writers who dealt with it. It has, however, now been restored to its proper home, and stands along with the other two'.

CISP: the stone remains inside the church.

Dimensions:1.47 x 0.41 x 0.13 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in display
Location:on site
Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `Inside church, standing against W. wall of nave'.

CISP 1997: the stone remains in this position.

Edward Lhwyd, or assistant, c. 1698, cited in RCAHMW/1925, 76: `The stone that this paper represents is very hard and rough and lyeth cross in Eglwys trisaint, being about 4 foot and a half long and one foot and a half broad'.

Westwood/1879, 124: `the stone, which is 4 feet 3 inches long, 11 1/2 inches wide at bottom, 14 inches at top, and from 3 to 4 inches thick'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `Rough pillar-stone. 58" h. x 17" w. x 5 1/2" t. Ogam and Latin inscriptions and a (later) ring-cross, showing that the stone was reused'.

Condition:complete , good
Crosses:1: arcs; outline; expanded; curved; plain; circular; outer curv; angular; plain

Westwood/1879, 124: `The upper part of the stone is ornamented with a cross with dilated ends to the four equal arms inscribed within a circle, the curved lines separating the arms interlacing in the middle of the cross. Two deeply-incised longitudinal lines extend two-thirds down the face of the stone, where they meet a transverse line, apparently forming the stem and base of the cross, although the stem does not arise from the centre of the lower limb of the cross. There are some other shorter horizontal and perpendicular lines (exclusive of the Ogham marks on the left edge of the stone), which appear to be destitute of any meaning'.

RCAHMW/1925, 75, 77: `an equal-armed cross within a circle. The form of the cross is similar though not identical with many of the earliest cross that are found in the Celtic areas of the British Isles...It may be added that the form of the Clydai example, namely, a cross with expanded arms placed within a double circle, as found on one of the Whithorn (co. Wigtown) stones, a form said in Allen's Early Christian Monuments of Scotland, 497, to be `unique'. It is also seen on the Chapel Coleman stone (No. 115) and St. Dogmaels fragment (No. 1012, iii)'.

Macalister/1945, 411: `the cross cuts into the Roman letters...[and] we must infer that it is a subsequent addition, and has nothing to do with the inscriptions...The cross is an equilateral cross pattée in a circle, the lines defining it intersecting at the centre. It is mounted upon a plain stem of two lines, not properly centred with respect to the head'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `Subsequently the stone was reset in the ground head downwards and the face filled with a large lightly carved outline `Maltese' ring-cross of Irish form (cf. No. 302 above), with moulded borders to the ring and (intercrossing) arms. Below is a detached double incised (or moulded) stem marked off below by a horizontal line (Fig. 5, 29), probably indicating the limit of the (new) butt (cf. No. 44). The stem and line have been scored through the last four letters of l.1 of the Latin inscription; the ring-cross has obliterated the final I of l.2. 7th--9th century'.



CLYDI/3/1     Pictures


Rhys, J. (1873):DOBLOTUCISI
RCAHMW/1925 5 reading only
Allen, R. (1896):DO[V^BL][.]T[.]C[.]S
Allen/1896 299 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):DOVATACIS
Macalister/1945 412 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):D[.]V[.]TUCEAS
(The stone) of Dovatucis (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 186 reading only


Orientation:vertical up
Position:ind ; arris ; beside cross ; undivided
Macalister/1945, 411: `Contrary to the usual practice...the Ogham [runs] downward, when the stone [is] placed to set the cross upright...we must infer that it [the cross] is a subsequent addition'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `The Ogam inscription is incised along the (original) r. angle of the face reading upwards'.

Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

500 - 566 (Jackson/1953)
Language:name only (ogham)
Ling. Notes:Macalister/1945, 412: `The nominative is also used in the Ogham'.
Palaeography:Westwood/1879, 125: `What still remains is read by Mr. Brash (i.e. supra) thus :--


The fourth letter may be A and not O. The middle strokes are however partially imperfect, but the legend appears to read, Dofat or Dofot the son of S...[Mr. Robinson] agrees with Mr. Brash in the reading of the Oghams, thinking however that `the concluding portion of the Oghams carried round what is now the foot of the stone and the right side must have escaped his notice. It is true they are faint and defaced, but I had the advantage of a good light, and think that three groups of Oghams in continuation may be clearly made out, tending I believe to the conclusion that this inscription is bilingual' (Arch. Camb., 1876, p. 142). To all these observers I must reply that my figure, Pl. LIX. fig. 1, is a careful copy of several rubbings of the stone, corrected by my original sketch (made during the Cardigan Meeting, when I lamed myself in my walk to this village)...and that the other Oghams beyond those given in my figures are so faint as to have led me to overlook them, both in my inspection of the stone and in the various rubbings before me in which they do not appear'.

Rhys/1873, 5: `partly illegible'.

Westwood/1879, 125: `The Ogham legend of this stone is much injured and some of the letters are lost'.

Carving errors:0



CLYDI/3/2     Pictures


Rhys, J. (1873):DOB[--] | {F}ILIVSEVOLENG{I}
Rhys/1873 5 reading only
Rhys/1873 299 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1922):DOBITVCI | {F}ILIVSEVOLENG{I}
Macalister/1922a 29 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):DOBTVCI | {F}ILIVSEVOLENG[{I}]
Macalister/1945 411 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):DOB[.]TVCI | FILIVSEVOLENG[.]
(The stone) of Dobitucus (PN), son of Evolengus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 186 and fig. 201 reading only


Orientation:vertical down
Position:ind ; broad ; below cross ; undivided
Macalister/1945, 411: `Contrary to the usual practice, the Roman inscription runs upward ...when the stone [is] placed to set the cross upright...we must infer that it [the cross] is a subsequent addition'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `The Latin inscription (partly defaced) is in two lines reading (originally) vertically downwards'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `lightly cut'.
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

500 - 566 (Jackson/1953)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Westwood/1879, 124--126: `The lower end of the stone is buried in the ground, but I believe there are no more letters than are shown in my figure, which are clearly



with certain markings after the B which may possibly be intended for letters. If, as may be conjectured, the cross with its double-lined stem and transverse-lined base is a subsequent addition on the stone, some of the older letters may have been cut through, as indeed seems to have been the case with the E in the second line: since I apprehend the name of the father (Evolenci) is identical with that of Evolenggi on the Llandyssilio stone (ante, p. 113), rather than that it is to be read VOLENCI, as I at first supposed (Arch. Camb., 1860, p. 228 [2]).

[2] In the Arch. Camb., 1875, Professor Rhys reads the last word EVOLONG{I}. The second O in this word is, however, clearly an E, and there is no trace of a tail to the supposed G, as pointed out by Mr. Brash (Arch. Camb., 1875, p. 285), by whom my reading Evolenci is maintained.

Mr. R. R. Brash, after carefully inspecting the stone...reads the lines --


the UN of the first word remaining, but confused by the lines above alluded to...Mr. G. E. Robinson, after a careful examination of the stone, was obliged to differ from the previous observers in respect to the last word, which he reads EVCLENG...To all these observers I must reply that my figure, Pl. LIX. fig. 1, is a careful copy of several rubbings of the stone, corrected by my original sketch (made during the Cardigan Meeting, when I lamed myself in my walk to this village), and that if the marks in the upper line are to be read as UN and as part of the word DOBUN, it is strange that they should be so much smaller than the first three letters; that the O in the second line appears unquestionably as such in the three or four different rubbings now before me; that Mr. Robinson has apparently mistaken as the tail of the G an impression in the stone.

[1] The marks after the letters DOB are regarded by Dr. S. Ferguson as a siglum serving to complete DOB by TAQUEO, which he reads DOBTAQUEO FILIVS VOLENS'.

Macalister/1922a, 29: `As to its inscription, I have no hesitation in reading DOBITVCI FILIVS EVOLENGI: the lettering has been cut into by the stem of a later-formed cross, but every letter except the first I is quite distinct, and I cannot understand how Westwood and others have found a difficulty in the reading. DOBITACI which is given in Romilly Allen's `Catalogue of Early Christian Monuments in Pembrokeshire' is certainly wrong'.

Macalister/1945, 411: `the Roman inscription is perfectly legible; it is difficult to understand why it gave so much trouble to decipherers in the past...Some of the letters are of unusual form: the B is formed with a line having a loop at the top and the bottom: the looped F is also to be seen on the Pant y Polion stone and on the inscribed vase from Traprain Law: the S resembles a Z: the G is of the sickle form. The I of DOBTVCI is not horizontal'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 186: `Roman capitals...The top bar of the F is doubled; the S is angular'.

Rhys/1873, 5: `partly illegible'.

Macalister/1945, 411: `Notwithstanding the interference of the cross, the Roman inscription is perfectly legible'.

Carving errors:0